 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pelley12/19/2003
FOR PUBLICATION
Robert Pelley, his father ("Reverend Pelley"), and stepmother ("Dawn") engaged in counseling sessions from 1988 to 1989. In 1989, Reverend Pelley, Dawn, and Pelley's two sisters were murdered and Pelley was charged with four counts of murder. The State subpoenaed all counseling records from the Pelley family's counseling sessions. The counseling center refused. Following a hearing, the trial court quashed the subpoena. The State appeals the quash. We affirm.
Issues
The State raises two issues for our review which we restate as follows:
1. Whether the trial court properly found that the social worker /client privilege retroactively applied to communications made before its enactment; and
2. Whether the communications fell within any of the exceptions to the social worker /client privilege.
Facts and Procedural History
From May 20, 1988, through April 27, 1989, Pelley, Reverend Pelley, and Dawn engaged in counseling services at Family and Children's Center (the "Center") in South Bend. The Pelleys met individually and collectively with personnel at the Center on at least twelve occasions. Social worker Mabel Davis compiled progress notes from the sessions with the Pelleys.
On April 29, 1989, Reverend Pelley, Dawn, and their two daughters were murdered in their home. Pelley was charged with four counts of murder on August 7, 2002. On August 22, 2002, the State issued a subpoena duces tecum to the Center for " ny and all counseling records from the Rev. Robert J. Pelley family from 1986 - 1989." Appellant's Appendix at 30(a). On February 26, 2003, the Center filed a motion to quash the subpoena, alleging that the counseling records were privileged under Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1, the social worker /client privilege. The Center also argued that the communications did not fall within the "homicide exception" to the privilege codified at Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1(1).
The State objected to the motion to quash, arguing that the statute creating the social worker /client privilege was not retroactive and therefore, did not extend to communications made to Davis by members of the Pelley family prior to the enactment of the statute. Alternatively, the State argued that, even if the statute was retroactive, the communications fell within the "homicide exception." Following a hearing and an in camera review of the documents, the trial court quashed the subpoena, finding that the statute applied to the communications made by the Pelley family to Davis between 1986 and 1989 and that the communications did not relate directly to the fact or immediate circumstances of said homicide. This interlocutory appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
I. Standard of Review
The grant or denial of a discovery motion is within the trial court's discretion and will be overturned only for an abuse of discretion. Andreatta v. Hunley, 714 N.E.2d 1154, 1156 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion in this context occurs only if the order is unreasonable in light of all the attendant circumstances and is prejudicial to a party's rights. Id.
II. Social Worker /Client Privilege
The social worker /client privilege is codified at Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1, which provides, in pertinent part:
Matters communicated to a counselor in the counselor's official capacity by a client are privileged information and may not be disclosed by the counselor to any person. . . .
The effective date of the statute was July 1, 1990. The statute is silent regarding its application to communications made b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|